Julian Liniger, chief executive of bitcoin company Relai, says the current $BTC bear market is partly a side effect of the global artificial intelligence infrastructure boom — and argues that if AI spending eventually plateaus, some of that sidelined capital could find its way back into bitcoin.
What "Liquidity Absorbed by AI" Actually Means
A bear market is a sustained period of falling or stagnant prices, typically driven by reduced buying pressure rather than a single shock. Liniger's argument is about where that buying pressure went, not just that it disappeared.
His point is mechanical: large pools of investable capital are finite. When institutions and high-net-worth allocators pour money into data centers, chips, and AI-adjacent infrastructure, they are drawing from the same liquidity pool that might otherwise flow into speculative or alternative assets like bitcoin. The competition for capital is direct. AI buildout, in this framing, is not neutral to crypto markets — it is a rival claim on the same dollars.
That is a testable premise, even if Liniger offers no data to support it directly.
The Reversal Thesis
Liniger also floats the scenario in which AI investment peaks or decelerates, and some portion of that capital rotates into bitcoin. This is a conditional claim, not a forecast with a date or price target attached. He is describing a potential mechanism, not a timeline.
Worth noting: this kind of argument — "the money will eventually come to us" — is a staple of crypto-industry commentary during down cycles. That doesn't make it wrong, but it does mean the claim carries a promotional function alongside any analytical one. Liniger runs a company whose business depends on people buying bitcoin.
What the Source Does Not Say
Liniger provides no figures on how much capital has moved into AI infrastructure, no estimate of what share might be redirectable to $BTC, and no time horizon for any reversal. The claim is directional, not quantified.
The core idea — that booming AI spending competes with crypto for institutional and retail capital — is coherent. Whether the pendulum swings back, and when, remains an open question the source does not answer.